The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)

[Lord Raven]

care to actually explain yourself?

Edited April 1, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Naglfar]

umad

Tier lists should be guides for new players, that's what I think.

yes the reason I said all that was so I could bask in the glory of your internet memes

tier lists are not guides, they cannot perform adequately as guides

a number or a tier placing says "this unit is this good relative to other units" that's not a guide

a tier list explains what, a guide explains what, how and why

I think the only reason this thread exists is that some people don't understand the concepts of efficiency or tier lists

[Aethereal]

umad

Default internet response to points you have no actual rebuttal for. Don't worry, you looked cool, and witty with this response.

Tier lists should be guides for new players, that's what I think.

I think guides and walkthroughs should be guides for new players. Tier lists aren't made for new players, because guides and walkthroughs already exist.

The same way a number from 1 to 10 can.

This explains the concept, not why the concept should replace efficiency tier lists, or why you couldn't just make a separate thread devoted to the concept. Which, if you're interested, you can do. People make threads evaluating characters based on their own opinion. And we have a ton of threads going around evaluating units ranked from 1 to 10. This whole concept already exists. Non-issue.

[Progenitus]

My qualms with turns that I said several pages back is that, intuitively, not every turn is equal. As the example I use often, 1 turn in FE10 1-P is not the same as 1 turn in a longer map, like 4-4. Therefore, instead of saying something like "well maps like 1-P are exceptions", I would rather try and search for these other factors that make logical sense.

Here's a topic I made trying to search and explain what these possible other factors could be (basically, real-time and effort).

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/932999-fire-emblem-radiant-dawn/57422579

I do find it interesting that the SF-niche disagreed with me while the other people outside the niche agreed (to a certain extent anyway). I can understand the disagreement (it IS very difficult to measure "real-time" and "effort" objectively), but I believe the concept is there, and I prefer to try and see how to explain these factors in a more objective sense, than try to argue for turn counts which I personally don't care about whenever I play FE. These two factors, in particular, explain why that 1 turn in 1-P =/= 1 turn in 4-4. 1-P is super easy and fast, since all you're doing is controlling 3 units against a couple of enemies, while 4-4 is hectic and much longer, with enemies swarming everywhere, sleep staffer, chests to gain, and so on. Planning a strategy for 1-P can be summed up as "lolz", while planning a strategy for 4-4 isn't so easy or fast.

[Othin]

If you have a problem with efficiency tier lists, please provide a standard superior to the above for us to use instead

I know I posted this a couple of places, but I guess not here.

1. Take your turn count at endgame

2. Add +4 for every character dead or not recruited

3. Add +20 for every reset

4. Subtract 1 for every 1000 gold you possess

5. Aim for lowest score

This is, of course, modeled after existing ingame ranking systems. Turns remain a main consideration, but the value of a reset is quantified without having to calculate the exact percentage chance of a strategy working. The requirements of getting characters and keeping them alive, and of getting excess money, add additional objectives to focus on rather than allowing chapters to become as straightforward and simplified as they can tend to be in absolute turn-efficiency considerations.

[Naglfar]

My qualms with turns that I said several pages back is that, intuitively, not every turn is equal. As the example I use often, 1 turn in FE10 1-P is not the same as 1 turn in a longer map, like 4-4. Therefore, instead of saying something like "well maps like 1-P are exceptions", I would rather try and search for these other factors that make logical sense.

Here's a topic I made trying to search and explain what these possible other factors could be (basically, real-time and effort).

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/932999-fire-emblem-radiant-dawn/57422579

I do find it interesting that the SF-niche disagreed with me while the other people outside the niche agreed (to a certain extent anyway). I can understand the disagreement (it IS very difficult to measure "real-time" and "effort" objectively), but I believe the concept is there, and I prefer to try and see how to explain these factors in a more objective sense, than try to argue for turn counts which I personally don't care about whenever I play FE. These two factors, in particular, explain why that 1 turn in 1-P =/= 1 turn in 4-4. 1-P is super easy and fast, since all you're doing is controlling 3 units against a couple of enemies, while 4-4 is hectic and much longer, with enemies swarming everywhere, sleep staffer, chests to gain, and so on. Planning a strategy for 1-P can be summed up as "lolz", while planning a strategy for 4-4 isn't so easy or fast.

1 turn = 1 turn

No matter how much stuff is going on, a turn is a turn. This doesn't invalidate turns as an objective measure. Real time is also an objective measure, it's used for speedruns. Time efficiency will never be the primary measure of quality in Fire Emblem though, because speedrunning doesn't reflect the essence of a strategy game. It's also a very complicated hobby that demands extensive planning and is thus much more difficult than playing for turns, which can be improvised for the most part. Guess which measure more people play by?

I know I posted this a couple of places, but I guess not here.

1. Take your turn count at endgame

2. Add +4 for every character dead or not recruited

3. Add +20 for every reset

4. Subtract 1 for every 1000 gold you possess

5. Aim for lowest score

This is, of course, modeled after existing ingame ranking systems. Turns remain a main consideration, but the value of a reset is quantified without having to calculate the exact percentage chance of a strategy working. The requirements of getting characters and keeping them alive, and of getting excess money, add additional objectives to focus on rather than allowing chapters to become as straightforward and simplified as they can tend to be in absolute turn-efficiency considerations.

It was rhetorical. That's just LTC with some extra shit tacked on anyway. It looks like a draft ruleset.

Main tier lists will probably always be efficiency-based like they are now for obvious reasons but I'll explain it anyway. The main goal of any Fire Emblem game is to beat it. Thus units who help beat the game quickly are better than units who don't (speed represented by turns), units who help beat the game easily are better than units who struggle, and units who help beat the game reliably are better than units who need the RNG's favour. The only other measure of beating the game "better" in most FEs is speedrunning, but I already explained why a speedrun tier list is impractical.

Concepts such as death, recruitment and the necessity to reset are already covered in existing tier lists because they impact the process of beating the game. Does the unit die easily? They go down the list for being inefficient (resetting is included in this, since most people reset when a unit dies). Does recruiting the unit slow you down? Inefficient, they drop. Money, on the other hand... money has no real bearing on this metric. You're never short on it, ever. If anything, actively saving money is inefficient.

So what about ranked tier lists, that do take money into account? It should be noted that the only reason those are popular is that the game keeps track of it. Saving money without a game mechanic to back it up is a self-imposed challenge and thus it can never be standard. Here, some people would say, "LTC is self-imposed too!" And I would say again, there are no LTC tier lists, only efficiency. Playing efficiently, assuming a player of a level of skill worth discussing, is natural. The efficiency player is trying to beat the game, that's all. They aren't after the lowest turncount ever, they may use a few suboptimal units that they like, but they won't dawdle for no reason because they know they don't need to. When someone starts babying Sofiya to 20/20, they stop playing efficiently - their primary goal is not to beat the game. Their goal is to experience using Sofiya. This player's specific priorities are not worth tiering for the rest of us.

What I can't understand is why people feel the need to challenge this. It's a set of values and characteristics the vast majority of us (including the naysayers) have, grouped into a solid, logical standard for us to debate and compare units with. It begs the question: what about this is inadequate? Why must our standards change? What is missing from "efficiency" that it fails to be an objective measure of the interests of the average, knowledgeable and unbiased Fire Emblem player? Yes, "average, knowledgeable and unbiased" is important. Remember that tier lists only really exist both for and because of the people who debate them as a hobby.

To close, replacing efficiency as we know it with something else as our primary reference point for unit quality is the Fire Emblem equivalent of overthrowing government. A handful of short posts in a thread will not accomplish this. You would need to show us why what we have is not good enough for us (as a whole, not you specifically - lots of people seem to have a problem understanding this and some skip over it entirely), because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Then you would need to show us a better way of thinking. If you think this is possible, which it probably isn't, don't bother responding to this post the way you normally would. Make a new thread and start writing an essay, because you won't rewrite something deep in our collective wisdom by whining about how nobody sees things your way.

I sure hope I got my point across. Much as I hope I'll win the lottery, but oh well.

[Anouleth]

I know I posted this a couple of places, but I guess not here.

1. Take your turn count at endgame

2. Add +4 for every character dead or not recruited

3. Add +20 for every reset

4. Subtract 1 for every 1000 gold you possess

5. Aim for lowest score

This is, of course, modeled after existing ingame ranking systems. Turns remain a main consideration, but the value of a reset is quantified without having to calculate the exact percentage chance of a strategy working. The requirements of getting characters and keeping them alive, and of getting excess money, add additional objectives to focus on rather than allowing chapters to become as straightforward and simplified as they can tend to be in absolute turn-efficiency considerations.

I dont know if that criteria is really an improvement. For example, characters such as Edward would skyrocket since e saves an enormous number ofturns. But a character like Raven would go down because he costs money to train and promote. I dont think that tier lists should tell us that Raven < Edward is what i'm saying.

[arvilino]

I know I posted this a couple of places, but I guess not here.

1. Take your turn count at endgame

2. Add +4 for every character dead or not recruited

3. Add +20 for every reset

4. Subtract 1 for every 1000 gold you possess

5. Aim for lowest score

This is, of course, modeled after existing ingame ranking systems. Turns remain a main consideration, but the value of a reset is quantified without having to calculate the exact percentage chance of a strategy working. The requirements of getting characters and keeping them alive, and of getting excess money, add additional objectives to focus on rather than allowing chapters to become as straightforward and simplified as they can tend to be in absolute turn-efficiency considerations.

Hmmmm...in FE7 and FE8, FE7 especially so(due to the Nini's Grace exploit) you can earn more than 1000 gold a turn from the Arena. So a 0 turn or even a infinitely negative turncout could be gained through that method.

Edited April 1, 2012 by arvilino

[Lord Raven]

Resets are taken into account with in-game rankings?

lol didnt think so

[OrangeCrush980]

The main goal of any Fire Emblem game is to beat it.

This. And it happens that Fire Emblem would be really easy to beat if you had a General with 5 move and 25 in all other stats (including con). However, that unit would be mid tier at best because you're not just beating the game, you're also trying to get low turn counts. Whereas most other players would consider that General a game breaker because he trivializes simply beating the game.

[Narga_Rocks]

This. And it happens that Fire Emblem would be really easy to beat if you had a General with 5 move and 25 in all other stats (including con). However, that unit would be mid tier at best because you're not just beating the game, you're also trying to get low turn counts. Whereas most other players would consider that General a game breaker because he trivializes simply beating the game.

Way to skip the rest of the statement. Do you disagree that units that help beat things quicker are better than units that don't? Then say so. Quote the other parts so you aren't taking a statement out of context and then directly state your disagreement and explain why.

See, to me, that General is indeed mid tier or worse because the guy never does anything. How is he breaking the game when my mounts are destroying enemies 2 turns before he can even reach the enemy? This is why they are better. They accomplish the same goal he accomplishes, beating the game, and yet they do it faster. qed

[General Banzai]

Do you disagree that units that help beat things quicker are better than units that don't?

Yes

I'd rather look at units who help beat things more reliably and with less effort.

[Anouleth]

Hmmmm...in FE7 and FE8, FE7 especially so(due to the Nini's Grace exploit) you can earn more than 1000 gold a turn from the Arena. So a 0 turn or even a infinitely negative turncout could be gained through that method.

And fe6. Its quite easy to abuse the arena since you can use supports in there. I dont know is it's easy to abuse the fe5 arena or th fe11 arena, though.

[Lord Raven]

Yes

I'd rather look at units who help beat things more reliably and with less effort.

Which a 7-8 move unit who is way ahead of the General can still do.

[General Banzai]

Which a 7-8 move unit who is way ahead of the General can still do.

Okay, then that higher move unit should be ahead of the General on the tier list.

[Lord Raven]

Then I don't see where the disconnect is. Too many of these examples are circumstantial and relies on the difficulty of the game; I'd kill for that General in FE12 Lunatic (early-game, lategame he's done for) but in a game like FE8 theres no reason he should be above low tier.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[CT075]

I think that part of the issue is that people like to see units like Hol!Sety with like 57 attack and a 80-something% chance to proc something and essentially kill the enemy seventeen times over before a counter attack higher on the tier list due to the sole fact that their stats are so stupidly high. Thing is, though, a unit like Holsety!Arthur (has a horse and kills/survives equally well) is higher on the list for the sole sake that you only need to kill a unit once, and anything higher than that is simply overkill (and shouldn't really be counted since past the point where the enemy is dead it's not getting you any closer to winning).

Which is why in that scenario the general may deserve mid tier, despite the fact that he has +6 in everything to the horse unit with 19 in every stat who does pretty much equally well (ORKOs everything and survives everything aside from an unlucky streak).

[Aethereal]

This. And it happens that Fire Emblem would be really easy to beat if you had a General with 5 move and 25 in all other stats (including con). However, that unit would be mid tier at best because you're not just beating the game, you're also trying to get low turn counts. Whereas most other players would consider that General a game breaker because he trivializes simply beating the game.

Besides what every one else said, this also ignores every scenario in which canto, rescuing, and moving farther makes things easier. People like to act like mounted units just make things faster, when they actually make things easier and faster. Sure, you can turtle through a lot of maps, but there's also a fair amount where you are better off, and more likely to survive, because of all those nice and fancy things mounts do for you. Combat stats are not the only aspect of a strategy game, people.

[Naglfar]

Hypothetical units like that are stupid anyway. Units don't exist in a vacuum, provide some context before posting your what-if. In what game does the general exist? What difficulty setting are we playing on?

And no, this general can't do everything himself and be top tier because it's effortless and reliable. It's also slow. Speed is probably the most important part of any form of efficiency. Thus units that do things easily, reliably and also quickly (turn-wise, but let's face it, it's faster time-wise too) trump the unferriable movement-penalty-tastic 5 move general.

[General Banzai]

Then I don't see where the disconnect is. Too many of these examples are circumstantial and relies on the difficulty of the game; I'd kill for that General in FE12 Lunatic (early-game, lategame he's done for) but in a game like FE8 theres no reason he should be above low tier.

I'm not saying Gilliam is better than Franz. In fact I agree with the placement of most of the units on the current efficiency tier lists, and don't think they should be changed all that much.

[Progenitus]

Way to skip the rest of the statement. Do you disagree that units that help beat things quicker are better than units that don't? Then say so. Quote the other parts so you aren't taking a statement out of context and then directly state your disagreement and explain why.

See, to me, that General is indeed mid tier or worse because the guy never does anything. How is he breaking the game when my mounts are destroying enemies 2 turns before he can even reach the enemy? This is why they are better. They accomplish the same goal he accomplishes, beating the game, and yet they do it faster. qed

How about FE10 Gatrie vs Mia, where Gatrie stomps Mia with no resources, but because Mia is given adept/etc. while Gatrie is given nothing (or not nearly an equivalent amount), the SF tiers has Mia > Gatrie (by a bloody tier and a half, no less)?

1 turn = 1 turn

No matter how much stuff is going on, a turn is a turn. This doesn't invalidate turns as an objective measure.

Okay then, why is Edward in Fe10 not at least high tier then on the tier list at thsi site? How about BK's 1-9? Or Brom's 2-1? If you're going to tell me "well that's what other people believe in and not me", that still doesn't explain the fact why there is a discrepancy going on within the community, and telling us that we're wrong doesn't change the fact that there is a hiccup within the majority of the debating community at this site.

By the way, the fact that turns is an "objective measure" doesn't mean it's the most accurate measure.

Real time is also an objective measure, it's used for speedruns. Time efficiency will never be the primary measure of quality in Fire Emblem though, because speedrunning doesn't reflect the essence of a strategy game. It's also a very complicated hobby that demands extensive planning and is thus much more difficult than playing for turns, which can be improvised for the most part. Guess which measure more people play by?

Speedrun is a poor example because there's a lot of time spent planning out the strategies plus any resets you do that are not recorded. Time efficiency should include all time spent creating strategies (whether or not you are actually in front of the game) as well as resets.

The point about time efficiency isn't "how are we exactly going to calculate how much time we spent beating the game?" It's just the concept of "less time and effort = better". You don't need to quantify the amounts.

Edited April 1, 2012 by IMPrime

[nflchamp]

The point about time efficiency isn't "how are we exactly going to calculate how much time we spent beating the game?" It's just the concept of "less time and effort = better". You don't need to quantify the amounts.

"Time efficiency" is terrible because we're ranking units and not players. How do I compare how much real time a unit saves me? "Less time and effort" is also subjective as hell. Just because one person thinks coming up with a strategy and executing it are time consuming and difficult doesn't mean anyone else does.

Also, can you not complain about non-quantified factors on an efficiency tier list and then immediately post this?

[dondon151]

How about FE10 Gatrie vs Mia, where Gatrie stomps Mia with no resources, but because Mia is given adept/etc. while Gatrie is given nothing (or not nearly an equivalent amount), the SF tiers has Mia > Gatrie (by a bloody tier and a half, no less)?

Because those resources exist, are relatively uncontested, and they fail to improve Gatrie by any significant amount whereas they improve Mia by a lot.

You can take away the Ike support (which is not needed to make Mia good), and maybe even Adept. Give her a max MT, max crit forge and in order for Gatrie to match that level of offense, he probably needs, like, a Speedwings, a Master Crown, and Celerity. The problem is that there's really only 1 of each of those (or 2 Speedwings) and he doesn't do well in comparison to other units with any of those resources. Mia does not have any strong competitors for Adept outside of Shinon.

[Othin]

I dont know if that criteria is really an improvement. For example, characters such as Edward would skyrocket since e saves an enormous number ofturns. But a character like Raven would go down because he costs money to train and promote. I dont think that tier lists should tell us that Raven < Edward is what i'm saying.

Well, that can go two ways. If using Edward in the first few chapters is super-important, he should get his due credit for that. But then we must consider whether that means the criteria give him like 50 points for turns saved, or simply that the criteria mean he's a top pick for three chapters or so. Raven can outweigh that with more chapters of being excellent.

Alternatively, we can say that it doesn't matter that Edward is a top pick because he's forced to be deployed, so of course you're going to use him for anything he might be able to do. As I've said, I only support rating units on the basis of their ability to compete for a unit slot: when a unit has forced deployment, there's no question of their use, so there's nothing worth considering of what you gain from using them vs. not using them.

Hmmmm...in FE7 and FE8, FE7 especially so(due to the Nini's Grace exploit) you can earn more than 1000 gold a turn from the Arena. So a 0 turn or even a infinitely negative turncout could be gained through that method.

1 turn per 1500 gold then? 2000? It's really just a rough estimate; I haven't bothered calibrating it properly yet. How high do those Arenas go?

Resets are taken into account with in-game rankings?

lol didnt think so

Congratulations; you've pointed out something entirely obvious. I didn't say I simply cloned the rankings.

[Naglfar]

How about FE10 Gatrie vs Mia, where Gatrie stomps Mia with no resources, but because Mia is given adept/etc. while Gatrie is given nothing (or not nearly an equivalent amount), the SF tiers has Mia > Gatrie (by a bloody tier and a half, no less)?

Okay then, why is Edward in Fe10 not at least high tier then on the tier list at thsi site? How about BK's 1-9? Or Brom's 2-1? If you're going to tell me "well that's what other people believe in and not me", that still doesn't explain the fact why there is a discrepancy going on within the community, and telling us that we're wrong doesn't change the fact that there is a hiccup within the majority of the debating community at this site.

By the way, the fact that turns is an "objective measure" doesn't mean it's the most accurate measure.

Speedrun is a poor example because there's a lot of time spent planning out the strategies plus any resets you do that are not recorded. Time efficiency should include all time spent creating strategies (whether or not you are actually in front of the game) as well as resets.

The point about time efficiency isn't "how are we exactly going to calculate how much time we spent beating the game?" It's just the concept of "less time and effort = better". You don't need to quantify the amounts.

The first two paragraphs are you failing to understand fairly simple rules of efficiency tier lists and I'm not going to bother explaining since you've no doubt heard it many times before. Speedrunning is time efficiency, or at least time's equivalent of LTC, and nflchamp already concisely explained why it's a retarded metric for tiering.

A lot of this "discrepancy" seems to be people who generally agree with tier list standards but hate them for some reason and assume they're all these things they aren't. The only hiccup amongst the debating community that I can see is people with an extensive history of being wrong, being wrong some more.